I was under the impression that the surprise is that their authoritarian political system doesn't stifle the conditions required for this level of innovation.
My observations suggest that this applies far more to lower performing employees than higher performing ones since the barrier to change jobs is lower for top tier talent.
In effect this means that while companies that give paltry pay bumps that don't keep up with the market may successfully hold on to lower performing employees, they'll be continually churning through top performers.
On the surface this seems like a terrific idea for the reasons listed in the article, but my experience has been that SSM is not as nearly reliable as SSH.
A full disk is enough to prevent SSM access, whereas SSH will still let you in.
Being a renter has afforded me many memorably terrible experiences. For example, having no heat for multiple days in the middle of winter with sub-zero temperatures because the management company didn't have their act together. I'll be damned if I ever rent again regardless of financial incentives.
What about the quality of practice? I'm using quality very broadly here to include things like: the content of the practice, good spaced repetition, focus, etc. Perhaps 10k hours of mediocre practice doesn't get you far, but 5k hours of high quality practice does?
"Nothing could be done about the muted sound. It’s like hearing a drum roll — the ball charging down the lane — with no crashing cymbal at the end. That crescendo and climax, Mills insists, is a visceral part “of the experience of smashing pins with a heavy ball.”
I haven't tried the strings yet, but the sounds of bowling are a big deal to me. Just walking into a bowling alley and hearing the sounds of pins being hit makes me feel good, and puts my in the right frame of mind. Without the crash, I feel like bowling would feel empty to me.
From the article: "software is still pretty dumb". I would prefer my software remain dumb. Every time technology is made to be "smart", it seems to get much worse.
I agree, and I wonder if we all "wasted" more time, if we would be healthier and happier. Perhaps that would make us more productive during the time we weren't "wasting". Paradoxically, it might even be a net gain in aggregate productivity.
Why should there be a ceiling on this at all? Just because someone makes more money does not mean it should be acceptable to abuse their time in the workplace. Most people earn high incomes, not because they signed up to meet arbitrary demands, but because they invested in education and training, and/or agreed to take on a high level of responsibility.
It helps me to have my plans/goals written down. When life gets complex and overwhelming I refer to them to remind myself what's important to me and therefore what I should prioritize. When I get off course, they guide me back.
I kept them simple and achievable. For example "lift weights 3 times a week".
Next step was to pick one at a time and schedule them. For example "MWF right after work". This helps make them a habit instead of a constant battle with your willpower.
Don't punish yourself for getting off track. Just get back to it. Eventually it will become part of who you are and you'll rarely get off track.
Between atoms and the void (which is not even a thing science recognizes), there is a potentially infinite amount of knowledge yet to be discovered. I use the word "infinite" literally here. Not only that, but it's possible some aspects of the universe and existence are undiscoverable by humans.
Who is to say that purpose cannot exist within this? It is unknown and possibly unknowable.
I believe the author has drawn the wrong lessons from science.